Saturday, December 01, 2007

I Doubt Even Conservatives Will Buy His Baloney

"Indeed, one has to prove one's identity to buy an airplane ticket, alcohol or cigarettes. Proving one's identity to vote — the most important exercise within a democracy — should not be treated with such disregard. Mr. Dion could have advocated legislation that would improve the integrity of our democracy, by opposing voting by mail and proxy and while wearing a veil.Such a move would have presented the Liberals as agents for positive change, a party that respected the sanctity of the democratic process. Instead, Mr. Dion turned his back on principle. "Well, of course, while Dion can "advocate" anything he wants, it is currently Conservative Legislation under consideration, and this legislation does nothing to establish a voter's identity because, as apparently needs to be repeated over and over again, it does not require the newly unveiled face to be matched against any form of photo ID.

Now, perhaps Dion should put forward legislation that 1) requires veiled women to unveil somewhere in the vicinity of the polling booth, 2) fixes the issue of mail-in voting and voting by proxy, where again it is impossible to determine whether the person casting the ballot is who they claim to be. If there is a problem (of voter fraud?) to be solved here, then this kind of legislation would do a better job of it than C-6. But that would certainly not preclude being against C-6.

But is there a problem to be solved? The Bloc Quebecois opposition to C-6 is instructive:

The Bloc Quebecois also opposes the bill but for entirely different reasons. Bloc MPs object to the fact that veiled women will be allowed to uncover their faces privately before female polling officials.Female polling officers may be hard to find in some of Quebec's small towns, and bringing them in might cost $$$. The Bloc supports the idea of Muslim bashing, in other words, but if its going to cost them to do it, no thanks.

Ahh, race baiting, a liberal's favorite way to try to silence legitimate debate.

There are no real dilemmas in our country regarding the degree to which new cultures, very different from ours, should be assimilated and the extent to which, if any, our laws should be tailored to suit the religios needs of a minority of the population, according to Gayle and her ilk.

Just a simple dichotomy: agree with whatever the liberal view of the day is

or

"racism".

The icing on the cake:

It wasn't "racist" until today - the day Dion got off board.

Could pandering to racist fears for purely partisan gain be any more obvious that this?

It is racist indeed to pass legislation that purports to target one group. As BCL points out, lifting the veil does nothing to establish identity, and mail in votes are still permitted.

So yes, this is racist and I have no problem calling it that - as I did in September when Dion supported this.

"There are no real dilemmas in our country regarding the degree to which new cultures, very different from ours, should be assimilated and the extent to which, if any, our laws should be tailored to suit the religios needs of a minority of the population, according to Gayle and her ilk."

That is quite the leap of logic (not that logic seems to be one of your strong points).

There is, in fact, a huge dilemma in our country when it comes to new immigrants - and that is down to the fact we welcome them, but we provide them little assistance in educating them on our social norms or assisting them to assimilate (note - this is NOT about "reasonable accomodation". I have no issue with people retaining their own religious practices).

I word directly with a number of refugee families. For children who have spent their formative years in refugee camps, violence is normalized. Many of these children and youth have been victims of violence, have witnessed violence (like the young Rwandan boy who came home from a soccer game to find his entire family slaughtered), and have perpetrated violence as a means to survive in their war-torn countries. We invite them in and then we do nothing to help them adjust. We do not educate them on our societal norms, yet we react strongly when they do not respect them. Then our politicians start complaining about veils, as if they are important in the grand scheme of things.

So heh, get a grip and get educated. Rather than complain (with the protection of anonymity), why don't you do something positive.

but you don't really know what it means in any particular context. Nor do you realize how such a loose application of such a heated charge can be applied to those on your side of the political spectrum.

You know its bad.

And you know you want to try to smear your political adversaries.

So you throw it around, apparantly ignorant of both the underlying meaning, and corrosive effect such slinging has on not only the prevailing political debate, but also to those in our society who currently experience or have experienced, real racism.

So you don't need to try to answer my questions (or more appropriately dance around them).

The legislation fails at everything unless the goal is to hassle Muslim women. And when I say fails I mean fails. The Tories have given out several stories as to why they want this legislation passed. The legislation does not do the job of solving the problems they say it is meant to deal with. All it succeeds in doing is to hassle Muslim women. Is that, for you, the point of the law, and if so isn't that racist?

Just as Christianity isn't a race, its a religion. (Christianity was referred to because some on the left have this rediculous double standard - there are correct religions and not so correct religions, christianity being a current politically incorrect one.)

As a religion Islam is a set of ideals, dogma and values that are particular to the members of the group. They are not inherent to a "race".

What any particular religious group believes in doesn't/shouldn't dictate how our laws are enforced.

In this instance there is no "race" involved - just a belief that by a woman showing her face in public (in particular to men) she shames herself and risks "seducing" men with an uncontrollable sexual urge.

Not even all muslims believe this (as many do not wear full body and facial covers), but only those of a more strict belief.

Just as Gayle is not "racist" for not believing in the right of mormons to be polygamous in our society, and not believing there should be laws to allow them to have more than one wife,

I and many others are not racist for not believing that a particular subset of Muslims that believe a woman should show no part of her body in public, be permitted to keep their face hidden in all contexts, including while voting. (An exception even Iran and Jordan don't permit.)

I understand that you may object to my referring to christian bashing common on the left, as that causes you to confront the obvious double standard that the left employs in their creative use of the "racist" label.

You refused to answer my basic questions because you would be caught in your own bigotry laced assumptions about what is, and what is not, "racist".

Ironically, the root of all real "racism", and bigotry, is ignorance. A trait you seem to possess in great abundance.